U.S. should stop hypocrisy on terror

When you send a message to others, “encouraging” them to change their behavior (through the use of subtle force), it’s a good idea not to be doing the very action you want them to stop.

When U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says military force should be considered in Pakistan, he might want to think about the actions of the U.S. government in the region, which nearly model the actions he is condemning Pakistan for doing.

The basis of his argument, that the Pakistani intelligence networks work with terrorist organizations that harm U.S. troops in Afghanistan and nearby countries, isn’t a bad one (although you should consider that the CIA has had extensive ties to groups in the region). The Pakistani government certainly has shady connections to organizations that cause harm in the Middle East. No one has ever called their government incorruptible. But this is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

The United States government has a long history of supporting groups that use terror to accomplish their goals. There was General Pinochet in Chile, whose regime tortured tens of thousands of people, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, the Shah in Iran (after the CIA helped oust their democratically-elected President), our support for the Contras in Nicaragua, terrorist forces fighting against the Sandinista government, and even Saddam Hussein, once an ally of the United States.

The definition of terrorism, according to Merriam-Webster, is the “systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.” I consider the use of napalm and Agent Orange on civilian populations, which have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and even more birth defects, the use of terror as coercion.

Sending hundreds of cruise missiles into populated cities is a use of terror. Killing thousands of people with those missiles is certainly terror. “Shock and awe” tactics are designed to break a population, to bend them to your will through the use of force and violence. It’s terrorism, plain and simple.

So when Lindsey Graham has the audacity to suggest we consider military force against a country that has ties to dubious organizations, he may want to read a history book. Or take a flight to Afghanistan or Iraq, even Pakistan or Yemen (countries where we’ve killed people with drone bombings) and tell the families of the people who died that it wasn’t meant as a show of force. I’m sure they’ll respond well.

If the United States government ever wants to be in a morally legitimate position to criticize the use of terror, it should give adequate reparations to the families of the victims state-sponsored terror, end the support and use of state-sponsored terror around the globe, and make broad changes to the way we deal with foreign conflicts. The hate that drives people to acts of terror does not appear magically. It is born out of a life of oppression. You don’t put out a fire with gasoline, especially not at these prices.

Lindsey Graham is a typical republican, shoot first as questions later breed of cowboys infilterating US politics.

This idiot needs to know that Pakistan has lost 35,000 civilians directly due to the war on terror plus another 5000 soldiers and a $100 Billion loss to the economy, yet not a single 911 attacker was a Pakistani. Pakistan continues to suffer from the US sponsored terrorists trained to fight the USSR in Afghanistan during the 80s.

Instead of bombing Pakistan, maybe we should be thanking them, they have helped capture alive some of the most wanted Al Qaeda terrroists alive, when was the last time the US captured someone of importance alive?